Sure it is. It excludes the things that are not logocally possible.
As anythng is possible, 'logically possible' is an arbitrary subset of what is possible.
Anything that is possible must therefore be logically possible. It's the way logic works. Most people simply do not understand what logic actually is, so they misuse the term.
Is it possible to defy/manipulate the laws of physics? Logic?
Why not?
With physics, it's entriely possible that the "laws" as we call them are not universally true across all of reality in all situations. So "defying" them is potentially a matter of the right situation.
The "laws" of logic can't really be "defied" by an occurrence. What is logical will be logical, what is illogical will be illogical. The only thing that could happen in a situation that would be construed as a "defiance" of logic would be thee realization that what was once thought to be logical (as in sound) was actually illogical (as in not sound).
Logic is dictated by reality, logic does
not act upon reality in any way. Logic is simply a way to structure an argument. Such an argument must be both valid and true in order to be classified as "logical". If something occurs that "defies" what was thought to be "logical", it automatically means that what was thought to be logical was actually illogical.
Now, someone can choose to present an
argument that defies the laws of logic. For example:
Premise 1: An omnipotent being has unlimited power.
Premise 2: Something with unlimited power can do anything
Conclusion: Therefore, an Omnipotent being can do the impossible.
This is a pure defiance of logic because it posits that, in this situation, it would be possible to do that which is not possible. The very fact that it would be possible means it cannot be "not possible".
That is a defiance of logic. What does that illogical argument mean? It only really means that the person who presents such an argument has presented an illogical argument. Nothing more, nothing less. Reality is unaltered by this illogical argument. Such a person can continue to try and pretend such an argument makes sense if they so choose and the world will still not be affected by the illogical nature of the argument.
The conclusion can never be true because it contradicts itself. It is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the same time. This is because of the nature of the words "possible" and "impossible". Under no circumstances can something be possible and impossible. This is not because of anything more than the definitions of the words. One destroys the other.
But even
more to the point, impossible and possible are
adjectives that describe something. You cannot use an adjective incorrectly (in the case of the conclusion of the flawed argument above, as a noun). "Impossile" is not a thing. It is not part of "anything". Incorrectly adding an article to such a word and trying to use it as a noun doesn't change the fact that the word is an adjective being used incorrectly.
Just as illogical was used incorrectly in these debates, so is impossible.
These words do nothing more than describe the
state of something. If something is impossible, that means it is something that can't be done. You cannot do something that is unable to be done because that turns that something (changes the
state of that something) into something that
can be done.
So this whole debate is pure nonsense and it is based entirely on people using adjectives as nouns.
That's just silly.